youth herald: Day of global Occupy protests gets underway

youth herald: Day of global Occupy protests gets underway: msnbc.com staff and news service reports @msnbc.com People of the world urged to 'rise up' and 'claim their rights and demand a true democr...

‘OCCUPY WALL STREET’

Confronting the Malefactors

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate — and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?

Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I’ll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I’d suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment — not more tax cuts — to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of great wealth.” Mitt Romney, for example — who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans — was quick to condemn the protests as “class warfare.”

But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.[The Hindu 8/10/2011}

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: സമരം സർഗാത്മകമാവുമ്പോൾ

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: സമരം സർഗാത്മകമാവുമ്പോൾ: അതെ, ഓക്കുപ്പൈ വാൾസ്ട്രീറ്റ് സമരം ജനകോടികളുടെ മനസ്സുകളെ കീഴടക്കിക്കഴിഞ്ഞു.. സമരങ്ങളെ ജനങ്ങൾ നെഞ്ചേറ്റുമ്പോൾ അവ ജനകീയ ഉത്സവങ്ങളായി മാറുന്നതെങ...

Anti Globalisation Struggles

‘OCCUPY WALL STREET’

GREAT PEOPLES STRIKES THE WALL OF THE EMPORER

“Anyone with eyes open knows that the gangsterism of Wall Street -- financial institutions generally -- has caused severe damage to the people of the United States (and the world). And should also know that it has been doing so increasingly for over 30 years, as their power in the economy has radically increased, and with it their political power. That has set in motion a vicious cycle that has concentrated immense wealth, and with it political power, in a tiny sector of the population, a fraction of 1%, while the rest increasingly become what is sometimes called "a precariat" -- seeking to survive in a precarious existence. They also carry out these ugly activities with almost complete impunity -- not only too big to fail, but also "too big to jail." The courageous and honorable protests underway in Wall Street should serve to bring this calamity to public attention, and to lead to dedicated efforts to overcome it and set the society on a more healthy course”…Noam Chomsky

"So its really about the courage to ask questions which we don’t have the available answers for." … Naomi Klein

THE award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein, who came to New York to participate in and address the Occupy Wall Street encampment. Her best-selling book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," focuses in part on Chile, where the shock doctrine produced world changing events after Augusto Pinochet’s coup in 1973. One of the biggest transformations of his dictatorship was to privatize education. Now, almost 40 years later students are protesting in the streets. We speak with Klein about the student’s demands, and what they feel is broken with the Chilean educational system. She also dismisses the critique that the related Occupy Wall Street protest lacks a clear set of demands. "What the demands should be to effect a system this pervasive and complex are by no means clear," Klein says. "So its really about the courage to ask questions which we don’t have the available answers for." She adds that the Tea Party and political parties have failed to offer their own reasonable alternatives. "It’s a great irony in an economic crisis created by deregulation, privatization, and corporate rule, that the solutions to the crisis become further destruction of the public sphere and more deregulation," Klein says…. DEMOCRACY NOW

“It’s the Makings of a U.S. Autumn Responding to the Arab Spring….” Cornel West

"It’s impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street into one demand, or two demands. We’re talking about a democratic awakening," said Dr. Cornel West when he spoke with Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman during a visit Tuesday night to the Occupy Wall Street encampment. Some critics have expressed frustration at the protest’s lack of a clear and unified message. But the Princeton University professor emphasized that "you’re talking about raising political consciousness so it spills over all parts of the country, so people can begin to see what’s going on through a set of different lens, and then you begin to highlight what the more detailed demands would be. Because in the end we’re really talking about what Martin King would call a revolution: A transfer of power from oligarchs to everyday people of all colors. And that is a step by step process." Dr. West also called on President Obama to apologize for calling on members of the Congressional Black Caucus to “stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying” when unemployment among African Americans has reached record highs and two of five Black children live in poverty. …DEMOCRACY NOW

“RESULT OF SOCIALIZING LOSSES AND PRIVATISING GAINS” --

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz showed up at “Occupy Wall Street” this week to show his support for the protest and clearly outline what he sees as the worst crimes of the American financial sector.

In a brief speech amplified by an “echo chamber” of protesters (who shouted Stiglitz’s own words as a group because they’re banned from using megaphones), the Colombia University professor said that Wall Street had become wealthy by “socializing losses and privatizing gain,” calling it a scheme that’s “not capitalism.”

“After the bubble broke, they continued in their way of disobeying the law, in a sense. Throwing people out of their houses, even in some cases when they didn’t owe money…

“We bailed out the banks with an understanding that there would be a restoration of lending. All there was was a restoration of bonuses. Unless we deal with the anti-competitive practices with the reckless vending and speculative behavior, with the anti-competitive practices, unless we restore demand to the function it should serve, we won’t have a robust recovery.” JOSEPH STIGLITZ {DEMOCRACY NOW}

CORNEL WEST

[ Professor of religion and African American studies at Princeton University and the author of numerous books on race.]

ADDRESSING THE WALL STREET PROTESTERS

There is a sweet spirit in this place. I hope you can feel the love and inspiration...Of those Sly Stone called every day people... Who take a stand with great courage...

And compassion... Because we oppose... The greed of Wall Street oligarchs... And corporate plutocrats... Who squeeze the democratic juices...

Out of this country... And other places around the world...I am so blessed to be here... You got me spiritually break-dancing on the way here...

Because when you bring folks together... Of all colors... And all cultures... And all Genders...And all sexual orientations... elite will tremble in their boots... Yeah...

And we will send a message... That this is the U.S. fall... Responding to the Arab Spring...And it’s going to hit Chicago... And Los Angeles... And Phoenix, Arizona...

And A-Town, itself... Moving on to Detroit... We going to hit Appalachia...We going to hit the reservations with our red brothers and sisters...

And Martin Luther King Jr. will smile from the grave... And say, we moving step by step...And say, we moving step by step... For what he called a revolution...

And don’t be afraid to say revolution... Because we want a transfer of power...We want a transfer of power...From the oligarchs... To ordinary citizens...

To ordinary citizens... Beginning with the poor children of all colors... And the orphans and the widows... And the elderly... And the working folk...

That we connect the prison-industrial complex... With the military-industrial complex...With the Wall Street oligarchy complex... And the corporate-media complex...

So, I want to thank you and it’s a blessing to be a small part of this magnificent gathering.This is the general assembly, consecrated by your witness and your body and your mind.

Yeah. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you.

future of the left

Contemporary Challenges Befor the Left

Challenges and Possibilities for Building Socialism of the 21st Century

A PANEL discussion on ‘20 years after the fall of USSR: Contemporary Challenges before the Left’ was organised by web magazine Newsclick on September 24, 2011 at the Constitution Club, New Delhi. The panelists included Professor Aijaz Ahmad, Professor Prabhat Patnaik and CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat. From Newsclick, Prabir Purkayastha convened the discussion and laid out the objective and significance of the theme under discussion.

Professor Aijaz Ahmad began by saying that the theme of discussion makes us discuss two topics, firstly the consequences of the collapse of the USSR and secondly the contemporary reality of ‘here and now’ and the task is to draw out the correlations between these two. Underlining the importance of the existence of socialist bloc or Warsaw pact countries as a support for national liberation movements and to maintain the balance of forces in the UNSC, Ahmed highlighted the consequences of the fall of USSR, some of which would have been inconceivable earlier even as the neo-liberal project had started in the 70s itself. He also explained how the collapse has led to the profusion of anti-communist ideologies from millenarianism of different types -- Rightwing Populism to Anarchism-reformism-postmodernism. He also explained how the collapse has effected the intensification of the savage war on the gains made by working classes, dissolution of the social welfare gains in Europe and abrogation of national sovereignty. Stressing the need for the Left to reflect on the character of the capitalism of our times, he emphasised that the contemporary capitalism has exhausted its capacity to create employment and further expand the industrial proletariat. He further underlined the relevance of the worker-peasant alliance in overwhelmingly agrarian societies and multi-class alliances.

Emphasising the growing threat of rising neo-fascism, AIjaz pointed out the alarming possibility of functionally fascist regimes coming into being in the western world. While applauding the wave of demonstrations against neo-liberal policies and autocracies, Aijaz Ahmed added a note of caution saying that if the socialist intellectual becomes too optimistic it runs the risk of succumbing to crass populisms. He concluded by saying that even though the capitalism is beset with crises and the discontent of the people is manifested in popular protests, without an authentic movement of the Left, a better future cannot be realised.

Professor Prabhat Patnaik started by saying that in the collapse of USSR also there is a confirmation, in a way, of Marx’s fundamental insights, albeit ironic. Firstly, the essential component of philosophical materialism is that there is no necessary coincidence between intention and outcome; this is borne out by huge expectations that could be seen at the time of collapse and its actual devastating effects on the Russian economy and society. Secondly, the collapse has also proved that there is no halfway house between capitalism and socialism and thirdly the reality of imperialism and the relevance of the analytical category of imperialism has been strongly emphasised by the fact that even when the challenge of socialist camp is withdrawn still the imperialism very much exists. He further underlined the necessity of making the qualitative shift from being trapped in history to transcending history to achieve socialism and the role of conscious intervention in the form of political praxis. Adding that there would be pitfalls in this process he explained the predicament of USSR of building socialism in a capitalist world and highlighted the lessons to be learnt from this experience. Explaining how this predicament led to the ‘closure of political arena’ for focusing on material development, Patnaik highlighted the problem of depoliticisation of working class in USSR. Saying that dictatorship of Party coupled with growth and armed might did not prove enough to cope with the imperialist onslaught, he underscored the necessity of ‘politicisation of the masses’ for the survival of socialist project.

Prabhat Patnaik pointed out that today we are facing not one but two crises, namely recession and also the food crisis. Both are the result of the hegemony of finance capital. He further stated that the State being hegemonised by finance capital has become a part of the immanence of the system, which further intensifies the crisis. On an optimistic note he added that this prolonged crisis opens up the possibility of revolutions as the contemporary times are reminiscent of the phase of revolutionary upsurge from 1914-50, the period which was also beset with the crises of capitalism. However, he added that each phase of the revolutionary upsurge must have its own forms of struggle and own agenda. In lieu of conclusion, Patnaik laid out the contours of such an agenda which Left must devise for the largest sections of the society. Firstly, it must entail defending beside working class, large masses of petty producers and peasants from the onslaught of neo-liberal policies, secondly anti-imperialism has to be a major component of this agenda and the struggle against imperialism would also entail the struggle against our own big bourgeoisie which is collaborating with imperialism and thirdly this agenda must have the project of modernity as an important component which involves the struggle for equality and political democracy, which has the potential to strike a blow at the oppressive and hierarchical systems such as caste. As a closing remark he underscored the significance of Marxism's struggle in the realm of theory and called upon the students to have a taste for theory.

Prakash Karat discussed the role of the Left today in the framework of the imperialism of today and the prospects for socialism in 21 century and spelt out the challenges and emerging possibilities. Saying that undoubtedly imperialism has become more aggressive and even reckless in the absence of USSR and the socialist project in retreat, he stressed on emerging resistance across the world to imperialist globalisation and the disastrous impact of neo-liberal policies. Discussing the crisis of social democracy in Europe as the social democratic parties have embraced neo-liberal policies and accepted the hegemony of NATO, Karat explained this predicament in terms of the shift away from anti-imperialism and stressed that for the reconstitution of the Left, the cardinal principle is the recognition of and struggle against Imperialism. Analysing the popular protests and struggles in Europe, he underlined the fact that these protests can only be effective if there is an organised Left political force and working class movement. He took the example of Greece where a communist party with substantial mass base and a strong trade union exist and thus the radical demand of giving up Euro is voiced strongly in the popular protests. Without belittling the defensive struggles waged across Europe he said that it needs to be kept in mind that in the absence of a political agency no new headway can be made. He also pointed this out in case of Egypt and Tunisia where the working class ferment has been the bedrock of mass upsurge. Prakash Karat underlining the progressive aspects of the popular protests in Arab world , categorically stated that whatever happens in Egypt one thing is certain that there is no going back to the earlier order. Karat also underlined the necessity of learning from the experiments in Latin America, especially in Venezuela and Bolivia, where the possibilities for socialism are being explored.

Taking the discussion of building socialism in current situation forward, Karat stated that there is no going back to the socialism of 20th century and in many aspects the socialism of the 21st century will be different from its 20th century counterpart. Stressing that one has to see the socialism of the 20th century as a product of a specific historical conjuncture, he underlined the necessity of deciding upon the aspects of 20th century socialism which need to be carried forward and ones to be discarded. However, he made it clear that this decision is to be based on the relevance or irrelevance of these aspects and not on any moral or political judgment. Karat clearly stated that in the vision for socialism, working class cannot be written off as a vast mass of wage labourers still exists in spite of the restructuring of labour process. Taking a cue from Lenin, he pointed out that within proletariat many sections exist and as the big sections are out of the formal industrial sector, new ways of organisation have to be devised and trade unions are trying to come to terms with this challenge. Highlighting the necessity for keeping the concrete situation in mind, he added that if CPI(M) escaped from the dismantling effects of the collapse of USSR (unlike many communist parties, especially in Europe) it was because we were aware of its imperfections. He also underlined significance of CPI(M)'s engagement with parliamentary democracy. While concluding Karat emphasised three issues as those of vital importance to the struggle for building socialism, namely anti-imperialism, struggle against Indian bourgeoisie, which is growingly collaborating with imperialism, and the struggle for social justice.

Peoples Democracy

who cares..?

The Poverty Of Estimates

By Devinder Sharma

26 September, 2011
Ground Reality

Everyone seems upset. Ironically, more upset with the definition of the poverty line and the criteria that has now become the butt of a national joke, are the economists and of course some members of the high-profile National Advisory Council. They have been doing the rounds of the TV channels expressing dismay at the threshold of what Planning Commission constitutes as the poverty line.

I was amused watching them express their concerns. In many ways it is like shedding crocodile tears. Amused because these were the same people who were either responsible for drafting the poverty line or were in a way the silent spectators. They had never challenged the 'below the poverty line' (BPL) criteria. Perhaps by remaining quiet or turning a blind eye to the gross injustice being perpetuated by the planners on country's vast army of poor and downtrodden, these economists stood to gain. I see no other reason why the entire community of economists had silently been using the same fraudulent BPL norms that they now find fault with (believe it or not, some of the most distinguished names are associated with the formulation of the poverty line).

This is what constitutes conspiracy of silence.

I have no hesitation in saying that the entire controversy following the questioning of the BPL norms by the Supreme Court has actually brought the economist class into disgrace. For nearly 50 years, they had not only prepared but also backed a bogus poverty estimate. They went on using the same useless poverty estimates into all their economic analysis. I wonder with such a faulty foundation what kind of analysis these economists must have produced. How reliable is their analysis, perhaps we will get to know provided the Supreme Court now gets into questioning the merits of the econometric analysis (that uses the poverty data) has been churned out in volumes over the years.

I have also keenly followed many of the quick news analysis that many economists and others have written. This was expected. The best way to overcome your guilt is to paint a picture that show how pained you are now to know that Planning Commission's poverty line for urban areas is Rs 31/day and Rs 25/day for the rural areas. If you are earning more than this, you are above the poverty line. In reality, this estimate is nothing but a revised estimate based on the current prices. Otherwise, Tendulkar committee had earlier drawn a line of Rs 19 per day for the urban areas and Rs 14 for the rural areas. The parameters that go into defining this BPL criteria remain the same. (Spend Rs 32 a day? Govt says you can't be poor Times of India Sept 21, 2011 http://bit.ly/qMWYRc).

In an interesting piece Playing with numbers, and lives (Indian Express, Sept 23, 2011) Rajya Sabha MP Brinda Karat writes: "The National Advisory Council, headed by Sonia Gandhi, had in its draft also included a clause that 'identification will be based on the criteria notified by the Central government'. One wonders whether the veteran activists who were part of the drafting committee in NAC were unaware of the poverty line which at the stage of their drafting was even lower than the Rs 26 line they are so articulately criticising today." She is referring to the public outcry being made by Aruna Roy, Jean Derez and N C Saxena.

I have always considered India's poverty line to be actually a starvation line. For over a decade now, I have been questioning the wisdom of fixing a stringent poverty line in which you can't even feed a dog. How can a human being survive in that amount? But believe me, none of the economists or NAC members (I am not sure of there is an exception) ever stood up to pose the same questions. They were very happy following the poverty prescription laid out. They obviously stood the gain by not questioning the poverty norms.

I have been asked as to what I think should be the way to determine real poverty. You can read what I had to say when the NAC came up with what I consider is yet another faulty path to removing hunger (Path to hell they say is paved with good intentions.http://bit.ly/iB2HDj). I also draw your attention to another article How to keep poverty low http://bit.ly/o60BsA. In my opinion, what India needs is not one poverty line. We need two lines: Poverty Line (what Arjun Sengupta committee worked out at 77 per cent population unable to spend more than Rs 20 a day), and an Antyodaya Line comprising 37.2 per cent of the population (which incidentally is the present poverty line).

the Hippocratic capitalism

Hypocrisy Of The ‘Poverty Line’: Seven Times
Below The Stipulated Minimum wage!

By Peoples Union for Democratic Rights

26 September, 2011
PUDR wishes to draw public attention to the recent controversy where Planning Commission informed the Supreme Court that anyone earning more than Rs 32 in urban and Rs 26 in rural areas per day is considered above the poverty line. Article 43 of India’s Constitution lays down that “(t)he state shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities”. India’s low ranking in major human development indices and the fact that an overwhelming majority of the population continue to be denied this conceptualisation of what would be considered a “fair wage”, raises disturbing questions with regard to the official standpoint on poverty.

In 1957 at the 15th Indian Labour Conference (ILC) moves were made towards setting down norms for fixing Minimum Wage, a euphemism for a “living wage.’’ The 15th ILC recommended that in the first place the standard working class family should be taken to mean husband, wife and two children below the age of 14 yrs. Second, minimum food requirement should be calculated on the basis of 2700 calories daily per adult man, 2160 for woman and 1620 for the child. Further clothing requirement of 72 yards for a family per annum would be added while housing allowance corresponding to the minimum area provided for under the governments industrial housing schemes. Lastly fuel, lighting and other items of expenditure should constitute 20 percent of the total Minimum Wage.

While the Government did not accept these recommendations, Supreme Court approved these norms through its judgement in the case of U.Unichoyi v. State of Kerala (AIR 1962 SC 12) and thereby acquiring the force of law behind it. The apex court through its judgement in Workmen v. Reptakos Brett & Co Ltd (AIR 1992 SC 504) added a sixth norm – 25 percent of the total Minimum Wage was supposed to cover children’s education, medical treatment, recreation etc. The Court observed that these six norms would be nothing more than Minimum Wage at “subsistence level” which the workers must get “at all times and under all circumstances”.

Adherence to the six norms, let alone the five norms laid down by the 15th ILC, has been followed in breach. As a "living wage", at current wage rates declared under Minimum Wage Act, comes to Rs 247 per day for unskilled. Rs 32 touted by the Planning Commission as "below poverty line" is less than seven times the Minimum Wage which itself is a "subsistence wage". Thus Minimum Wage is seven times that of BPL rate. What this implies is that mass of our people are being robbed of their right to life by artificial constructions of poverty line. PUDR reiterates that the letter and spirit of Article 43 which forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy be the basis for providing basic requirement to all citizens of India so that their right to a life of dignity and liberty can be ensured.

Harish Dhawan and Paramjeet Singh
Secretaries PUDR